Killing of Hezbollah’s Chief of Staff by Israel in Beirut Signals a Strategic Shift

Israel’s assassination of Hayat Ali Tabatbay—described in Lebanon as Hezbollah’s chief of staff—marks the most significant Israeli action in Lebanon since the ceasefire took effect roughly a year ago. The targeted strike, carried out in the heart of Beirut on Sunday, came after weeks of Israeli warnings and eliminated one of the last surviving senior veterans of Hezbollah’s military wing following last year’s conflict, which claimed the lives of many top figures, including Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

Although officially in place, the ceasefire has been largely theoretical. Israeli operations resumed almost immediately after it was declared, focused mainly on Hezbollah operatives and weapons infrastructure south of the Litani River.

Over the past year, nearly 400 people have been killed in Israeli strikes in Lebanon—most of them Hezbollah fighters. Last week, an unusual attack on the Ein al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon killed 14 Palestinians and targeted what Israel identified as a Hamas military installation.

Many of Israel’s strikes have aimed to disrupt Hezbollah’s attempts to re-establish its military presence in areas from which it is formally banned. However, regional and political considerations also influenced the uptick in operations.

Jerusalem’s Waning Optimism Over Lebanon

Until early summer, Israeli officials believed the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Armed Forces were showing new willingness to confront Hezbollah’s entrenched military power. But recent months have brought a shift in those assessments.

The Lebanese army’s push to limit Hezbollah’s movement has stalled, while the organization has accelerated efforts to rearm and reposition fighters both north and south of the Litani. In response, Israel has intensified its strikes—though Hezbollah, to this point, has refrained from launching significant retaliatory attacks.

A Senior Assassination and Its Implications

The decision to target such a high-ranking figure signals Israel’s readiness to absorb risk—including the possibility of several days of cross-border fighting.

The strategic balance between the sides today is markedly different from a year ago:

• Hezbollah’s top leadership, including Nasrallah, was eliminated in last year’s war.

• Rocket stockpiles have been sharply reduced.

• The organization’s morale appears diminished.

Even so, Israeli officials acknowledge that some form of retaliation by Hezbollah remains a credible possibility.

U.S. Backing Seen as Key to Netanyahu’s Decision

Analysts say Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likely would not have approved the Beirut strike without explicit support from U.S. President Donald Trump. Washington is pushing multiple regional diplomatic tracks, including efforts to reshape Lebanon’s internal security arrangements.

Some in the administration reportedly believe that a forceful Israeli demonstration of intent could break the deadlock in negotiations involving Beirut, the Lebanese Armed Forces and Hezbollah’s disarmament.

The developments also intersect with other strategic fronts:

• In Syria, the Trump administration is seeking to advance a normalization deal with Israel, but Netanyahu has expressed reservations.

• In Lebanon, Israel remains deeply concerned about Hamas’ growing military presence in Tyre and Sidon—positions Hamas could use to pressure Israel at a time when Washington is trying to stabilize the Gaza ceasefire.

Domestic Political Considerations at Play

The Beirut assassination also carries clear political implications for Netanyahu.
His visit last week to the Syrian Golan Heights—seen by many as deliberately provocative—added to speculation that the prime minister is leveraging regional friction for domestic advantage.

According to critics and political analysts, the heightened tensions serve several purposes for Netanyahu:

• Shaping the public narrative during a sensitive pre-election period

• Keeping national security at the forefront of public debate

• Justifying delays in his corruption trial

• Presenting himself as having “learned the lessons of October 7” through a more aggressive military posture

But beneath these claims, the article notes, not all decisions appear to be driven purely by security imperatives.

photo: Muhamed